Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I gave you the numbers in my article as to how many jobs were created in 1997-2002. Do you deny this? All studies suggest that the 35-hour week directly created 400,000 jobs, and contributed to the generally more upbeat mood in France

Again as to personal misery, you point out to anectodal evidence - I pointed you to actual numbers on poverty, unemployment and the like. Do you have any actual macro numbers you'd like to point to? Anectodally, I can point you to just as many inverse cases, which prove just as little as your own anectodes.

As to the wealth tax, do you know how little 2 people per day are? That's 7,000 over 10 years, to be compared to almost 100 times that who have more than one million dollars in net assets in France. so that's like 1% of the rich that moved in 10 years, an insignificant number for people that are anyway on the move a lot (remember what "jet" means in "jet set"?). The wealth tax certainly does not cost more than it collects - unless you can point to actual numbers again, not the spin from politically- or personally- interested operatives. The little guy certainly does not pay for the wealth tax (unless, again, you have actual information to that respect, rather than soundbites and spin).

You want anectode? As a banker, I am paid more in Paris than in London, for the exact same job, after tax, housing and school costs.

and just for your info: France attracts educated foreigners from rich countries, whereas the UK actually exports them:

Give me facts, not anectode.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sat May 5th, 2007 at 02:36:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"I gave you the numbers in my article as to how many jobs were created in 1997-2002. Do you deny this?"

No, and I do not have time for re-researching all your figures. But what matters is how many are unemployed, and that is not pretty reading in France.

"All studies suggest that the 35-hour week directly created 400,000 jobs, and contributed to the generally more upbeat mood in France"

Do you have a couple of links to those studies?

What upbeat mood in France? Where do you find that?

12% of the population in poverty, nearly 9% unemployment, is that an upbeat mood? The fact that you can point to cases of happily employed people doesn't disprove the cases that many are not. It just underscores that France is a two-tier society with some in privileged positions and some left out in the cold. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, couples with 12% poverty and 9% unemployment. Far from ideal.

Wealth tax: What matters is that the capital and activity disappearing from France because of it exceeds the tax it would have collected. I know from first hand about that person who nearly stayed away because of that tax. I have seen estimates of the cost of the wealth tax, although it's virtually impossible to prove what the situation would have been without the wealth tax. I know from the concrete example that I would have lost income from an important client if he had stayed away because of the wealth tax had he not found the exoneration. I'm one of the little guys who are losing out because that tax keeps certain clients away. Who pays the taxes that France needs to function when the wealthy ones go away or don't come? The little guy! How do you explain that France is nearly the only western country that still has a wealth tax, while even socialist countries like Denmark and Sweden are scrapping it? That tax is nothing but an envy tax that the socialists need to keep in place for dogmatic reasons. In absolute value, it represents very little tax and the revenues could easily be replaced by other taxes that are less provocative. The psychological impact of the wealth tax is much higher than the real cost to the few who pay it. I'll never ever pay that tax but I want to see the back of it asap. Think about it!

"You want anectode? As a banker, I am paid more in Paris than in London, for the exact same job, after tax, housing and school costs."

And so what? What is the point you want to prove with that?

Maybe you have endless time to dig up facts, but I have a business to run that the state is trying to smash up, sorry. "social model" go to hell!

by skovgaard on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 09:02:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wealth tax: What matters is that the capital and activity disappearing from France because of it exceeds the tax it would have collected.

France is consistently in the top 5 for Foreign Direct Investment, one of the most used indicators as to the attractiveness of a country for capital:

(note that UK's numbers in 2005 are inflated by the 140bn reorganisation of Shell, which was structured as a  'purchase' of Shell UK by Shell Netherlands)

For a complete picture, because I care about getting the facts straight, here's the two way numbers, on aggregate for the past 10 years:

France also has one of the biggest outflows of capital. Should this be counted under "successful internationalization of the big French corporations" , or under "capital flight"?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 09:42:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
from the Financial Times:

Socialism (97-02) sure does not seem to have discouraged foreign investors.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 10:07:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is indeed investment in France, but as your figures show not enough to prevent a net outgoing of capital.

But wealth tax is as you know now paid by corporations but by individuals. I don't get the idea of discouraging wealthy individuals from staying in France with their capital, not least since the wealth tax revenue is negligible in the big picture.

When they move or don't come to France, it's not only the wealth tax they don't pay, it's also income tax. The activity they don't generate in France or that is lost when they leave France means less employment and less taxes on salary and turnover.

If the wealth tax were beneficial for a country, it's very strange indeed that almost no one else has it.

by skovgaard on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 12:55:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just as you point out the 'Shell exception' for the UK; the inflow and outflow numbers have to be broken down into what are real inflows of capital vs. outflows of capital and not paper events.
by An American in London on Thu May 17th, 2007 at 06:11:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"is how many are unemployed, and that is not pretty reading in France."

Wrong again.

by Laurent GUERBY on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 09:47:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fine, if you find that 9% unemployment is quite all right and normal, then what can I say? You don't mind about the many jobless; that's your right, as it's everybody's right to be selfish and cynical, caring only about their own privileges.
by skovgaard on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 12:59:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
and just for your info: France attracts educated foreigners from rich countries, whereas the UK actually exports them

Actually, unless I am reading this chart wrong, as of circa 2000, France exported more "tertiary-level graduates" to OECD countries than it imports from them: 4.40% emigrated vs. 4.20% immigrated.

(Having said that, the U.K. imports 6.50% and exports 14.90%.)

Luxembourg, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland are the only European countries that import more graduates from OECD countries than export to them.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Sun May 6th, 2007 at 09:48:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series